Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

The Electoral College


Our Founders never intended for America to be a democracy.

If you're interested in more on the topic of the electoral college, see The Pro's and Con's of the Electoral College System.

13 comments:

  1. With all due respect, I'm a little more confused than I was before.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your Pros and Cons link is dead.

    There's a lot of other things our Founders never intended, too, including a president who called our Constitution "just a goddam piece of paper" and another one who bows before all foreign leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Presidential elections don't have to be this way.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

    The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough Electoral College votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the Electoral College votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    NationalPopularVote
    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

    ReplyDelete
  4. Toto, sweetie pie, get your hairy little ass back to Kansas and quit yapping.

    Anyone who wants to do away with the electoral college is an ignoramus.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states. That majority of ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

    National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

    And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

    Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Slant mouth Morris; Once a disgraceful prostitute toe sucker, always a disgraceful prostitute toe sucker.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If we didn't have the Electoral College a few states with a combined population less than New York City wouldn't be able to control 30% of the Senate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually Ducky, that wouldn't change. The makeup of the Electoral college is based on Congressional representation not the other way around.

    As for the NPV scheme Toto, if it has such popular support why not just propose to amend the Constitution instead of attempting an ill considered unconstitutional scheme that subverts it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's true Viburnum. My bad.

    But it is the reason the Senate has become dysfunctional.

    The Electoral College is just some frosting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Since the Senate has worked admirably well for two centuries I would think your complaints are more properly directed at several of it's members rather than the institution. Which of them is debatable of course and we'd likely disagree, but since the purpose of the Senate is a check on an excess of populist enthusiasm it may be that we'd both be mistaken. You don't bitch about your brakes when applying them slows your car down, only when they don't.

    ReplyDelete
  11. NPV will not ensure that every vote is equal. NPV will invalidate votes.

    In 2000, GWB lost the popular vote buy won the Electoral College. Washington State went for Gore.

    In 2004, GWB won the popular vote and the Electoral College. Washington State went for Kerry.

    Under NPV, all of Washington's electoral votes would have been awarded to GWB despite the fact that more people in the state voted for Kerry. Their vote was voided. Their vote was marginalized. Why?

    Their vote didn't count due to how people outside of their state voted.

    A state's electoral votes should be determined solely on the results of the votes in that state. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Senators in the Electoral Collage should vote for the candidate that won the most vostes in their state. The Congressmen in the Electoral Collage should vote for the candidate that won the most votes in their Congressional district.

    This would effectively remove all possibility of a Democrat being elected President ;)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Beamish,
    I retrieved your comment.

    Your comment was caught in the spam folder because I have a form of comment moderation for old posts.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective